Delhi District Court
Mayawati vs Dharam Singh on 7 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL KHATRI, CIVIL JUDGE-06,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ No. 595959/2016
CNR No. DLCT03-000206-2005
IN THE MATTER OF:-
1. Smt. Mayawati
D/o Late Sh. Khillu Ram,
W/o Sh. Mange Ram,
R/o Village Jagatpur, P.O. Burari, Delhi.
2. Smt. Rajwati (deceased)
D/o Khillu Ram
W/o Subhash
R/o Village Jagatpur, Delhi
(Through LR's)
(i) Sh. Subash Chand (Husband)
S/o Anant Ram
R/o Gali No. 7, Village Jagatpur, Delhi
(ii) Smt. Toshi (Married Daughter)
W/o Sandeep
R/o Tamur Nagar, New Friends Colony,
New Delhi
iii) Sachin (Minor son of deceased)
S/o Subhash Chand
R/o Gali No. 7, Village Jagat Pur, New Delhi
3. Smt. Prem
R/o H. No. 1742/1,
Village Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi
4. Sh. Rohit
S/o Late Sh. Ganga Saran
R/o H. No. 1742/1,
Village Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi
.......Plaintiffs
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.1/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:15:55
+0530
Versus
1. Sh. Dharam Singh (Since Deceased)
(Through LR's)
a) Smt. Jaggo, W/o Late Sh. Dharam Singh
b) Sh. Sandeep Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Dharam Singh
c) Sh. Satish Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Dharam Singh
d) Smt. Sushma, D/o Late Sh. Dharam Singh
e) Smt. Seema, D/o Late Sh. Dharam Singh
All residents of 1742/2, Sher Singh Bazar, Kotla
Mubarakpur, New Delhi
2. Sh. Satish Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Dharam Singh
R/o 1742/2, Sher Singh Bazar,
Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi
3. Smt. Savita, W/o Satish Kumar,
R/o 1742/2, Sher Singh Bazar,
Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi.
.........Defendants
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PERMANENT INJUNCTION
AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
Date of Institution : 05.07.2005
Date of Reserving Judgment : 02.02.2026
Date of Judgment : 07.02.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking following re-
liefs against the defendants:
i. Decree of permanent injunction in favour of Plaintiffs and
against the defendants, thereby restraining the defendants, their
agents, servants, legal heirs etc. not to interfere in the peacefulCS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.2/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:16:07
+0530
possession of the Plaintiffs and the defendants be also restrained
from collecting the rent from any of the tenants of the property no.
1742/1, Village Kotla Mubarakpur having total 11 tenants on
ground floor, first floor and second floor (hereinafter ‘suit prop-
erty’);
ii. Pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the
Plaintiffs and against the defendants and thereby direct the defen-
dants to remove the illegal/unauthorised entry in the wall of the
second floor roof (shown red colour in the site plan) so that the
plaintiffs can construct the wall in place of illegal/unauthorised
entry gate in suit property;
iii. Decree of declaration that alleged documents dated
09.09.1998 and 24.02.2003 i.e. Special Power of Attorney, Gen-
eral Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit and Receipt
regarding the sale purchase of part of suit property, as forged and
fabricated and the documents as well as transaction be declared
illegal & same is null and void.
Case of the plaintiff
2 The facts of the case as culled out from the plaint are as
follows:
2.1 Plaintiff no.1 and 2 are the married daughters of late Sh.
Khilu Ram and the Plaintiff no. 3 is the daughter-in-law of Late
Sh. Khilu Ram who is residing in the suit property along with
Plaintiff No. 4 who is the grand son of Late Sh. Khilu Ram.
Plaintiff no. 4 is son of Late Sh. Ganga Saran who was murdered
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.3/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:16:12
+0530
by his wife namely Smt. Kamlesh and she is undergoing life im-
prisonment sentence but she has jumped her Parole, and her
whereabouts are not known. Plaintiffs inherited the suit property
from their ancestors but till date no partition has taken place and
all the Plaintiffs are having equal rights and share in the said
property.
2.2 Defendant No.1 is the nephew of Late Sh. Khilu Ram and
he is residing in the house i.e. 1742/2, village Kotla Mubarakpur,
which is adjacent to the property of the plaintiffs. Defendant no.2
is the son of defendant no.1 and Defendant no. 3 is the daughter-
in-law of Defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 taking advantage of
being the relative of the plaintiff with an evil eye trying to en-
croach in the house of the plaintiff earlier in the year 1987 when
he tried to demolish wall and reconstruct the same, at the time
police was called by Late Sh. Khilu Ram and in the police station
the defendant no.1 had given an undertaking whereby he stated
that he will not claim any right in the wall in the dispute and and
he will also reconstruct the wall broken by him. This compro-
mise/undertaking was given on 27.11.1989 before SHO Kotla
Mubarakpur.
2.3 After the death of Late Sh. Khilu Ram and his son namely
Sh. Ganga Saran and Sh. Cheti Singh, defendant no.1 alongwith
defendant no.2 tried several times to grab the suit property-forcibly
but due to intervention of respectable persons of the society the
defendants could not succeed in their ill designed motives. How-
ever, defendants no.1 forcefully installed one door in the wall of
the second floor roof which is more particularly shown with red
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.4/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:16:19
+0530
colour in the site plan. Plaintiffs were out of station on that day as
they had gone to attend a marriage. After coming from marriage
they raised objection and also lodged police complaint in this re-
gard. At that time the defendant no.3 who is constable in Delhi
Police threatened that “if you will try to approach police/higher
authorities then I will get you booked in false cases as I am having
good relation with the higher police officials being in the police
staff and no body is going to listen to you”.
2.4 When the plaintiffs approached the Police officials of P.S.
Sewa Nagar they gave assurance to the Plaintiffs that they will
definitely take necessary action against the defendants, and rely-
ing on police assurance the plaintiffs came back. In the month of
May, 2005 the plaintiff No.2 who is the special attorney of plain-
tiff no. 1, 3 & 4 visited the suit property for collection of rent from
their 11 tenants but to her utter surprise she came to know from
the tenants that one Sh. Dharam Singh who called himself as your
relative came and by saying that “I have been authorised to take
the rent on behalf of the owner/landlord, you are supposed to give
the rent to me” and he has taken rent from us for the month of
April.
2.5 Defendants had forged and fabricated and manipulated the
documents i.e. Special Power of Attorney dated 09.09.1998 and
they further forged, fabricate and manipulated the documents in
respect of the suit property and they are claiming that they pur-
chased the part of suit property from Smt. Kamlesh through Gen-
eral Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, affidavit Receipt dated
24.2.2003. Defendants have forged and fabricated the alleged
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.5/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:16:24
+0530
documents just to grab the property without any right, title or in-
terest. It is pertinent to mention here that Smt. Kamlesh has no
right, title or interest in undivided property of Late Sh. Khilu Ram
and she has no right to sell the property without obtaining any le-
gal authority and plaintiff no.3 being minor has also share in the
suit property which is not partitioned at any point of time. Plaintiff
no.1 visited the property and after inquiry from the tenants they
lodged a complaint in the Police Station Sewa Nagar on 28.5.2005,
which was duly received, but till date no action as been taken on
the said complaint.
2.6 Defendants again threatened the plaintiffs of dire conse-
quences, in the mean time with the intervention of some re-
spectable persons of the society, a local panchayat was called on
5.6.2005 to settle the matter and in the panchayat defendant no.1
has given the assurance that he will not intervene in the property
and again the panchayat was fixed for 10.05.2005, on that day the
defendant no.1 straight away refused the settlement wherein it was
decided that Dharam Singh and his family members would not
intervene in the plaintiffs’ property. At that time all the efforts of
the Plaintiffs were failed. Defendant no. 2 & 3 threatened that they
will get the property on the basis of false, fabricated andforged
documents and if any one get in the way then he/she will become
responsible for his/her own misfortune. He also threatened of dire
consequences and said that to grab the property they can go to any
extent. Defendants are trying to grab the property and with their ill
designed motive and malafide intention they have forcefully in-
stalled an illegal entry into the wall of the suit property and have
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.6/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:16:30
+0530
also forcibly taken the rent from the tenants for the month of April-
May 2005.
Case of the defendants
3. Summons of the suit were served upon the defendants and
they filed their joint Written Statement (hereinafter WS) making
inter-alia following averments:
3.1 The suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action and
as such the same is liable to be dismissed under order VII Rule 11
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The suit is bad for
mis- joinder of unnecessary party. It has been submitted that the
defendant no.3 who is the wife of the defendant no.2 has got
nothing to do with any of the disputes of the plaintiffs with the
answering defendants no.1 and 2, hence the suit of the plaintiff qua
the defendant no.3 is liable to be dismissed.
3.2 The suit of the plaintiffs is also not maintainable for non –
joinder of necessary parties. It is submitted that all the legal heirs
of Late Sh. Ganga Saran have not been impleaded as parties to the
present suit, though, as per the claim of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff
no.4 Sh. Rohit is claiming his right on the basis of right of prop-
erty of his father late Sh. Ganga Saran. Even the wife of Late Sh.
Ganga Saran i.e. Smt. Kamlesh has not been impleaded as party in
the present suit. As such also, the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non
joinder of necessary parties.
3.3 The plaintiffs no.1, 2 and 4 are out of possession and under
the garb of the present suit, they are seeking a decree of posses-
sion. Since the plaintiffs no.1, 2 and 4 are out of possession and
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.7/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:16:37
+0530
they are seeking possession, as such, a suit for possession is the
only remedy on which the plaintiffs are liable to affix the ad-val-
orem court fee. The suit has not been valued properly for the pur-
poses of court fee and jurisdiction. It has been submitted that the
value of the suit property is more than Rs.5 lacs and since the
plaintiffs are out of possession, as such, they are liable to pay/affix
ad-valorem court fee. Hence, this court has no pecuniary jurisdic-
tion to entertain and try the present suit.
3.4 The suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable as they have
got other efficacious remedy by filing a suit for partition and as
such also, the present suit is hit by section 14(1)(h) of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963 and the same is liable to be dismissed. That the
relief of declaration sought is unfounded and misconceived. By
the relief of declaration the plaintiffs are seeking the declaration
of their ownership without payment of court fee. Since the plain-
tiff is impliedly seeking the declaration of ownership they are li-
able to pay the full court fee. The plaintiffs are seeking the relief
of declaration, declaring the said agreement to sell as null and
void. The plaintiff is liable to pay the court fee on the amount
mentioned in the agreement to sell.
3.5 It has been averred that Smt. Kamlesh was in jail in Sep-
tember 1998 in a criminal case and she had been writing letters to
the defendant no.1 requesting therein to collect rent of the property
and when the defendant no.1 could not get the rent from the ten-
ants and the tenants asked for power of attorney, Smt. Kamlesh
asked the defendant no.1 to get execute a Special power of Attor-
ney. Accordingly, on 09.09.1998 Smt. Kamlesh came to Patiala
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.8/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:16:43
+0530
House Court and on the said day she executed the said power of
attorney and the same was witnesseth by her advocate Mr. Madan
Lal. It was agreed between the parties that the defendant no.1 shall
be sending the rent to her in jail, some money was collected by
her parokar and some of the money used to be paid to her advo-
cate. Smt. Kamlesh used to write the letters to the defendant no.1
requesting him to send some money orders, and accordingly, he
used to send the money orders to Smt. Kamlesh. The said money
orders were duly received by Smt. Kamlesh. It is also reflected
from the letters written by Smt. Kamlesh that her brother-in-law
(Devar), the defendant No.1 will take the rent from the tenant.
3.6 It has been submitted that the defendants were maintaining
the property and paying the electricity charges. Smt. Kamlesh had
also written in the letters that as and when she would come out
from the jail, she would execute the title documents in favour of
the defendant no.1. Smt. Kamlesh was released from the jail on
parole and she executed the General Power of Attorney, Agree-
ment to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt all dated 24.02.2003, after taking
a sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs and sold the property to Defendant No.1 for
a total sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and had handed over the possession
of the same. After purchasing the property in the year-2003, the
Defendant No.1 to 3 have been taking the rent from the tenants
and through the tenants, they have been in sole and exclusive
possession of the property in question.
3.7 It is further averred that during the life time of Sh. Ganga
Saran, a meeting of panchayat was held with regard to the partition
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.9/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:16:48
+0530
of the property. In the said Panchayat, a panchayatnama was exe-
cuted on 05.03.1995, it was categorically mentioned that that a
mutual partition of the property between Sh. Chaiti and Sh. Ganga
Saran had taken place and Sh. Chaiti and Sh. Ganga Saran
will be entitled to have equal half portion/share in the suit prop-
erty. It was also mentioned that none of the said persons will sell
the property until and unless their children become major. The said
panchayatnama was duly signed by both the parties and panchayat
members. As per the said settlement, both the properties were
partitioned between Chaiti and Gagan Saran having 50% share
each. Front portion falls in the share/in the name of Sh. Chaiti and
the other remaining share falls in the share/in the name of Sh.
Ganga Sharan.
3.8 It is submitted that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintain-
able because they have filed the case against the entire property
i.e. the share of Sh. Chaiti and Sh. Ganga Sharan. Smt. Prem the
plaintiff No.3 has got sole and exclusive property shown in the
yellow colour in site plan and there is no dispute at all in the same.
The portion shown in red colour in the site plan is the only prop-
erty in dispute which was sold by Smt. Kamlesh and the posses-
sion was handed over to the defendants. The suit of the plaintiffs
is thus bad for mis-joinder of parties. The plaintiff has not filed
true and correct site plan of the suit property and thus the suit is
liable to be dismissed.
3.9 It is further averred that the whereabouts of Smt. Kamlesh
is known to the plaintiff but the plaintiffs deliberately and inten-
tionally are not impleading her in the suit. Hence the suit of the
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.10/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:16:55
+0530
plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of parties. It is stated that Smt.
Kamlesh, who has executed the title documents in favour of the
defendants is the necessary party.
3.10 It is submitted that the suit property, which is sown in red
colour of the site plan filed by the defendants, is an open space and
the defendants are having windows, for fresh air and sunlight. The
defendants have been using the said facilities for about 40 years.
The defendants have got easementary right over the said property
and the plaintiffs have no right title and interest in the said prop-
erty.
3.11 It is submitted that the plaintiffs no.1 and 2 are the married
daughters of Late Shri Khilu Ram and they have got no right, title
or interest in the property in question. They are also out of pos-
session as such they are living at their matrimonial house. It is
further submitted that the plaintiff no.4 who is the son of Late Sh.
Ganga Saran is also not residing in the suit property. The plaintiff
no.3, though, was occupying some portion of the property but at
present, she is not residing in any of the said portions.
3.12 It is further averred that the daughter of the plaintiff no.3,
namely, Nirmala got married in the month of March, 2004. Since
Smt. Prem, plaintiff no.3 had no money for the marriage of her
daughter, as such, the defendant no.1 had arranged all such finance
for the marriage of Smt. Nirmala, daughter of the plaintiff no. 3.
The plaintiff no.3 promised to repay the paid amount in installment
and as such the defendant no.1 has right to recover the said amount
from the tenants in the suit property.
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.11/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:17:01
+0530
3.13 The rest of the content of the plaint was denied by the de-
fendant no. 1.
Replication
4. Replication has also been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs to
the WS of the defendants in which the contents of the plaint was
reiterated and submission made by defendants in their WS were
denied.
Issues
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following
issued were framed on 20.12.2007:-
1. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party
as alleged in the written statement? OPD.
2. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the pur
poses of Court fees and jurisdiction? OPD.
3. Whether the suit is barred by Section 41(h) of the Specific
Relief Act? OPD.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for permanent
injunction as prayed for? OPP.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for mandatory
injunction as prayed for? OPP.
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for declaration
as prayed for? OPP
7. Relief.
5.1 Vide order dated 28.04.2012, an Application U/o 6 Rule
17 for amendment in the WS by the defendants was allowed by the
court and amended WS filed by the defendants was taken onCS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.12/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:17:06
+0530
record. Thereafter, an Application U/o 6 Rule 17, CPC, 1908 filed
by the plaintiff for amendment in the plaint to include averments
and relief regarding declaration of documents General Power of
Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt all dated
24.02.2003 executed by Smt. Kamlesh in favour of defendant no.
2, as null and void was allowed by the court vide order dated
06.10.2012. On the basis of amended plaint and WS filed on behalf
of the plaintiffs and defendants respectively, issues were reframed
for adjudication as follows:
i. Whether suit of the plaintiff is without cause of action?
OPD.
ii. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of par
ties? OPDiii. Whether the plaintiff is guilty of suppression and conceal
ment of material facts and has approached the Court with
clean hands? OPDiv. Whether suit of the plaintiff has been signed and verified
by duly authorised person? OPP.
v. Whether suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 41(h)
of the Specific Relief Act? OPD.
vi. Whether the plaintiff is in the possession of the suit prop
erty? OPPvii. Whether suit of the plaintiff has been valued properly pur
pose of court fees? OPP.
viii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent in
junction as prayed? OPPix. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory in
junction as prayed? OPPCS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.13/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:17:13
+0530
x. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration as
prayed? OPPxi. Relief.
Plaintiff’s Evidence
6. Smt. Rajwati tendered her evidence by way of affidavit
which was Ex.PW-1/A. However, she passed away before her
cross-examination could be conducted.
6.1 Smt. Mayawati/Plaintiff then examined herself as PW-1
and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A on
record reiterating the submissions made in the plaint. She relied
upon the following documents:-
i. Ex. PW1/1 (colly) are copy of house tax receipts.
ii. Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) are copy of electricity bills.
iii. Ex. PW1/3 is copy of compromise/undertaking.
iv. Ex. PW1/4 is copy of site plan.
v. Ex. PW1/5 is copy of complaint.
vi. Mark A is copy of ration card.
vii. Mark B is copy of receipt of amount deposited to
cremation centre.
6.2 She was cross examined by the Ld. counsel for the defen-
dant. The relevant part of her cross-examination is as follows:
“The documents Ex PW1/3, Ex PW1/5, Ex PW1/2 are
with my advocates. Sh. Gangasaran had four children
namely Rohit, Anita. I am not aware about the names
of other children of Gangasaran. Smt. Kamlesh is the
wife of Sh. Gangasaran. It is wrong in suggest that
Smt. Kamlesh is also entitled of the share in the property
of her husband Sh Gangasaran. It is wrong to suggest
that was not in possession of the suit property at the time
of aling of the suit. It is correct that the plaint as well as
the amended plaint does not bear my signatures. It isCS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.14/42
SUNIL
KHATRI
Digitally signed by
SUNIL KHATRI
Date: 2026.02.07
17:17:18 +0530
correct that at the time of filing the suit, the property in
question was under the tenancy of different tenants. It
is correct that all those tenants used to pay the rent to the
defendant no. 1. It is wrong to suggest that I never ob-
jected to payment of rent to defendant no. 1 before filing
of the present suit. It is wrong to suggest that Smt.
Kamlesh, while in the jail, used to write letters to the
defendant no. 1 to collect the rent from the tenants and
sent the same to her and also pay the fee of her advocate
for fighting the case. I cannot identify handwriting of
Smt. Kamlesh. It is wrong to suggest that defendant no.
1 used to sent rent collected from the tenants to Smt.
Kamlesh on her instructions. It is wrong to suggest that
defendant no. 1 on instructions of Smt Kamlesh used to
deposit electricity and water charges before the authori-
ties out of the rent collected from the tenants, (vol. All
bills were paid by my sister). I can show the receipts of
electricity and water bills of the authorities with regard
to the property in question. It is wrong to suggest that
neither I nor my sister paid any electricity and water bill
and therefore I cannot produce the same or that the same
were in possession of the defendant no. 1 and are in
Court file. I do not know that the defendant no. 1 used to
visit Smt Kamlesh in jail. I was never on talking terms
with Smt Kamlesh. I do not know whether Smt Kamlesh
was literate or not. It is wrong to suggest that Smt
Kamlesh had executed special power of attorney in
favour of the defendant no. I to collect the rent and
look after the suit property. It is wrong to suggest that
the defendant no. 1 on the basis of the special power of
attorney used to collect the rent from the tenants. I can-
not identify the signatures of her advocate Sh Madan
Lal. I do not know whether Smt Kamlesh had sold the
suit property to defendant no. 2 when she was released
on parole on 24.02.2003.
Q. You have written in para no. 8 A of the plaint that
special power of attorney dated 09.09.1998, GPA,
Agreement to sell, Affidavit and receipts dated
24.02.2003 are forged and fabricated. How can you say
that the said documents are forged and fabricated when
you stated above that you cannot identify the signatures
of Smt Kamlesh?
A. I do not know anything about it and the pleadings of
the plaint have been incorporated by my sister Rajwati.
The original of the SPA in favour of my sister is placed
on record at this stage as Ex PW1/D1 while the copy of
the same is already on record previously. It is wrong to
suggest that no power has been conferred upon my sister
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.15/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:17:24
+0530
Rajwati for filing of the present suir by me in the said
SPA. It is further wrong to suggest that Ex PW1/D1 was
merely to authorize Rajwati for collection of rent of the
suit property only. I do not aware about the market value
of the property at the time of filing the suit. The property
is of many crores. It is correct that at the time of filing of
the suit the value of the property was more than Rs.
10,00,000/-. I have filed the present suit to get my
share in property. It is wrong to suggest that the defen-
dant no. 2 had paid the entire consideration to Smt.
Kamlesh. It is wrong to suggest that Smt Kamlesh had
executed GPA. Agreement to sell, receipt and affidavit
all dated 24.02.2003 in favour of defendant no. 2. It is
wrong to suggest that legal and formal possession of the
suit property to the defendant no. 2. It is wrong to sug-
gest that defendant no. 1 and 2 were collecting the rent
by their own rights from the tenants.
I can identify the signatures of my husband on document
Ex PW1/D2 at point A. It is wrong to suggest that the
property was partitioned among the brothers Chetti Ram
and Gangasaran. It is wrong to suggest that false suit has
been filed after the said Panchayat. It is wrong to suggest
that Smt Prem the plaintiff no. 3 has got specific share in
the property. It is wrong to suggest that site plan filed by
me is false. It is wrong to suggest that Smt Kamlesh
whereabouts is known to me. It is wrong to suggest that
I am disclosing and bringing her on record. It is correct
that windows of the defendant open in the open space of
the property. It is wrong to suggest that defendant no. 1
and 2 have got easemantry right over the open space. It
is wrong to suggest that the said windows were there for
the last 40 years. It is wrong to suggest that the Smt Prem
the plaintiff no. 3 has been having good relations with
the defendant no. 1. It is wrong to suggest that defendant
no. 1 borne the expenses of the marriage of the daughter
of the plaintiff no. 3. It is wrong to suggest that the
complaints filed by me are forged and fabricated. It is
wrong to suggest that I and the other plaintiffs had no
right, title or interest over the suit property. It is wrong
to suggest that the SPA does not bear signatures of Ro-
hit. I cannot identify the signatures of Rohit. It is wrong
to suggest that the power of attorney executed by me is
forged and fabricated. It is wrong to suggest that it does
not bear the signatures/thumb impression of the plain-
tiffs.”
6.3 Sh. Vijender Pal Singh, UDC, Delhi Jal Board, ZRO, Giri
Nagar, Delhi was examined as PW-2. He stated that as per record
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.16/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:17:31
+0530
available in the department, there was no water connection in the
name of Sh. Khilu Ram at property 1742/1, Kotla Mubarakpur,
Delhi and there are two water connections at the said property, one
is in the name of Sh. Ganga Sharan and second connection is in
the name of Sh. Hanimat Singh, as per record. The copy of the
bills pertaining to the said connection are Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.
PW2/2 respectively. Thereafter, he was discharged.
6.4 Sh. Narender Kumar, AZI, A & C Department, Central
Zone, SDMC, M.C. Primary School, Sanwal Nagar, New Delhi-49
was examined as PW-3. He had brought the record of house tax of
suit property and as per the record, the suit property stand assessed
in the name of Sh. Khilu Ram. The copy of assessment form is
Ex.PW3/1 (OSR). Thereafter, he was discharged.
6.5 Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Halka Patwari Village Kotla
Mubarakpur, District South East was examined as PW-4. He stated
that no particulars regarding the houses situated in each khasra
number were maintained with the Revenue Department. There-
after, he was discharged.
6.6 Sh. Bhanwar Singh was examined as PW-5, who tendered
his evidence by way of affidavit which was Ex.PW-5/A. He was
cross examined by Ld. counsel for the defendants and dis-
charged.
6.7 Sh. Kundan Kumar Tiwari, DSS Coordinator, New Con-
nection BSES, Nizamuddin, Delhi was examined as PW-6. He had
brought the summoned record i.e. record pertaining to CA No.
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.17/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:17:37
+0530
102008032, K No. 22925450, in the name of Late Sh. Khillu Ram,
R/o H. No. 1742/1, Kotla Mubarak Pur, Delhi. He had also brought
the original record of documents such as Application form i.e. Ex.
PW6/1, the copy of service connection record dated 23.12.1977
i.e. Ex. PW6/2, inspection report alongwith receipt of Rs. 125/- i.e.
Ex. PW6/3, distribution receipt (02 pages) i.e. Ex. PW6/4, house
tax receipt from MCD dated 13.01.1977 i.e. Ex. PW6/5, test report
dated 15.11.1978 i.e. Ex PW6/6, payment details (colly) (running
in 10 pages) i.e. Ex PW6/7. He had brought the original records
and as per the aforesaid record, the abovesaid electricity connec-
tion is in the name of Sh. Khillu Ram and the electricity supply is
at H No. 1742/1, Kotla Mubarak Pur. Delhi. The aforesaid con-
nection had been sanctioned in the year 1978 and till the date there
is no change/connection holder till date. He was cross examined
by Ld. counsel for the defendants. He submitted that he had not
personally visited to the suit property and whatever he stated is, as
per official record. Thereafter, he was discharged.
6.9 Thereafter, vide order dated 21.12.2016, plaintiff’s evi-
dence was closed.
Defendant’s Evidence
7. Defendant no.1 examined himself as DW-1 and filed his
evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex. DW1/A. He has relied upon
following documents:
i. Ex. DW1/1 is Special Power of Attorney (SPA).
ii. Ex. DW1/2 &3 are Letters written by Smt. Kamlesh
from Tihar jail.
iii. Ex. DW1/4 to DW1/22 are Money Order receipts.
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.18/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:17:43
+0530
iv. Ex. DW1/23 to DW1/25 are copies of electricity bills.
v. Ex. PW1/D1 is copy of panchayatnama dated
05.03.19957.1 He was partly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the
-plaintiff. However, before he passed away before completion of
his cross-examination.
7.2 Sh. Satish Kumar was examined as DW-2, who tendered
his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW2/A. He relied upon gen-
eral power of attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit, two receipts
Ex.DW2/1 to ExDW2/5 and Site plan Ex. DW2/6. He also relied
on documents which are already ExDW1/1 to Ex.DW1/25 and
Ex.PW1/D2. He was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the
plaintiff.
“It is correct that Smt. Kamlesh w/o Late Sh. Ganga
Saran. It is also correct that Smt. Kamlesh was convicted
for the offence of murder of her husband Late Sh. Ganga
Saran. It is wrong to suggest that Smt. Kamlesh had no
right, title or interest in suit property. It is wrong to
suggest that Smt. Kamlesh had no authority to execute
any document in respect of suit property.
At this stage, the witness is shown a document i.e. Pan-
chayat Nama dated 05.03.1995 already Ex. PW1/D-2
and asked the following question:
Q. Whether the Panchayat Nama dated 05.03.1995 Ex.
PW1/D-2 bears the signature of Chheti Singh?
Ans. No (vol. At that time, Chheti Singh was
missing from his village).
Late Sh. Khillu Ram also survived by two daughters
namely Mayawati and Rajwati. The Panchayat Nama
dated 05.03.1995 also does not bears the signatures of
Mayawati and Rajwati. There is no authority letter exe-
cuted on behalf of Mayawati and Rajwati in favour of
their husband to sign the Panchayat Nama. It is also
correct that alongwith Ex. PW1/D-2, there is no author-
ity letter of Chheti Singh in favour of any other person
to sign on his behalf. It is also correct that there is noCS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.19/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:17:49
+0530
authority letter attached with Ex. PW1/D-2 to be exe-
cuted by Mayawati or Rajwati in favour of any person
other than their husband. It is also correct that no site
plan has been attached with Ex. PW1/D-2. It is wrong to
suggest that the suit property was never partitioned
vide Ex. PW1/D-2. We have not filed any documents
for grant of loan for the daughter of plaintiff no. 3. It is
wrong to suggest that no loan was ever granted by de-
fendants for marriage of daughter of plaintiff no. 3. I
cannot tell the daughters of Khillu Ram executed any
Relinquishment Deed in favour of their brothers. It is
wrong to suggest that all legal heirs of Ganga Saran are
not required to be impleaded as party in present suit. It is
wrong to suggest that the suit has been valued properly.
It is wrong to suggest that the suit is not barred by Sec-
tion 41 (h) of Specific Relief Act. It is wrong to suggest
that the letters (Ex.DW1/2 and Ex. DW1/3) are forged
and fabricated documents by defendants in collusion
with Smt. Kamlesh. It is wrong to suggest that Smt.
Kamlesh or defendants had no right to collect the rent of
the suit property. It is wrong to suggest that the title
documents dated 24.02.2003 (Ex. DW1/2 to Ex.
DW1/5) are illegal, invalid as well as forged and fabri-
cated documents. It is wrong to suggest that Smt. Kam-
lesh had no right, title or interest or authority to execute
Power of Attorney dated 09.09.1998 or titled documents
dated 24.02.2003. It is wrong to suggest that money
orders sent to Smt. Kamlesh by defendants are act of
collusion between defendants and Smt. Kamlesh. It is
wrong to suggest that plaintiff are in exclusive posses-
sion of the suit property.”
8. Final arguments heard on behalf of the plaintiffs. No final
arguments were advanced on behalf of the defendants despite op-
portunity. I have perused the complete record carefully and
minutely.
9. My issue wise findings are as follows:
Issue no. i.
“Whether suit of the plaintiff is without cause of action? OPD”;
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.20/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:17:56
+0530
Issue no. iii.
“Whether the plaintiff is guilty of suppression and concealment of
material facts and has approached the Court with clean hands?
OPD”;
and
Issue no. v.
“Whether suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 41(h) of the
Specific Relief Act? OPD”
9.1 The aforesaid issues are taken up together for the sake of
convenience. The onus to prove the aforesaid issues is on the de-
fendants. However, no evidence has been led by the defendant to
prove these issues on record. Plaintiffs who are co-owners of the
property have filed the present suit to restrain defendants from
interfering in the suit property and from collecting rent apart from
other reliefs, therefore, it can not be said that present suit has been
filed without any cause of action. Defendants have also claimed
suppression and concealment of material facts by the plaintiffs,
however no specific details have been provided regarding the
same. It is also the contention of the defendants that plaintiffs have
equally efficacious remedy of filing the suit of partition, hence the
suit is barred under section 41 (h) of Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Defendants have failed to justify the said statement. Moreover, the
declaration of cancellation of documents and relief of mandatory
injunction like removal of door by the defendants etc. cannot be
claimed in a partition suit. Hence, there is no merit in the said ar-
gument put forth by the defendants. Accordingly, the aforesaid
issues are decided against the defendants and in favour of the
plaintiffs.
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.21/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:18:03
+0530
Issue no. ii.
“Whether suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties?
OPD”
10.1 The onus to prove the aforesaid issue is on the defendants.
As per the defendants, the wife of defendant no. 2 i.e. defendant
no. 3 has nothing to do with the present dispute. Moreover, the
other legal heirs of late Sh. Ganga Saran apart from plaintiff no.
4 were not impleaded in the suit. Even his wife Smt. Kamlesh who
was the executant of S.P.A. and other title documents of owner-
ship in favour of defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 respectively,
was not impleaded. Therefore, the suit is bad for mis-joinder and
non-joinder of aforesaid parties.
10.2 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff have argued that
there were specific averment made against defendant no. 3 in the
plaint. Smt. Kamlesh was convicted for murder of her husband and
undergoing life imprisonment but she had jumped her parole, and
her whereabouts were not known. It is stated that all the necessary
parties to the dispute have been impleaded.
10.3 In the plaint it has been stated that when the plaintiffs tried
to approach the police and objected to the installation of door by
defendant no.1, the defendant no.3 who is constable in Delhi Po-
lice threatened that “if you will try to approach police/higher au-
thorities then I will get you booked in false cases as I am having
good relation with the higher police officials being in the police
staff and no body is going to listen to you” . It was further men-
tioned that due to the approach of the defendant no.3 with higher
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.22/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:18:09
+0530
ups in police, no action was taken on the complaint made by the
plaintiffs to the police. The relief of restraining the defendants
from collecting the rent of the suit property is also claimed against
the defendant no. 3. Hence, in the opinion of the court, it cannot
be said that defendant no. 3 is not a necessary party in the present
suit.
10.4 The contention regarding non impleadment of Smt. Kam-
lesh and other legal heirs of late. Sh. Ganga Saran leading to non-
joinder of parties, is also without any merit. The present suit is not
for partition of the suit property but for restraining the defendants
from realising rent and cancellation of title documents, which is
maintainable by any co-owner of the property. It is settled law that
if the property is being used detrimental to the interests of a co-
owner then suit for injunction is maintainable not only against any
stranger but other co-owners also. Collection of rent is an incident
of ownership of the property and the plaintiffs cannot be deprived
from the same. As far the the question of Smt. Kamlesh being
necessary party due to the reason of execution of alleged title
documents by her is concerned, suffice it is to say that by way of
present suit neither determination regarding her share has been
done, nor any declaration regarding her disqualification from in-
heriting the property of late Sh. Ganga Saran has been made.
Hence, the relief sought by the plaintiffs can be granted even
without her impleadment in the present suit.
Accordingly, aforesaid issue is decided in favour of the
plaintiffs and against the defendants.
Issue no. iv.
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.23/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:18:15
+0530
“Whether suit of the plaintiff has been signed and verified by duly
authorised person? OPP”.
11.1 The onus to prove the aforesaid issue is on the plaintiffs.
No evidence has been led by the plaintiffs on the aforesaid aspect.
The defendants have taken objection in their WS that present suit
has not been properly signed and verified by a duly authorised
person. It is their case that only plaintiff no. 2 has signed and ver-
ified the suit at the time institution and no authority letter has been
executed in favour of plaintiff no. 2 by the other plaintiffs to file
the present suit. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs
have relief upon Ex. PW-1/D1 i.e. Special Power of Attorney ex-
ecuted by other plaintiff in favour plaintiff no. 2. The relevant rules
dealing with the aforesaid issues are as follows:
“14. Pleading to be signed.–Every pleading shall be
signed by the party and his pleader (if any): Provided
that where a party pleading is, by reason of absence or
for other good cause, unable to sign the pleading, it may
be signed by any person duly authorized by him to sign
the same or to sue or defend on his behalf.
******………………******
15. Verification of pleadings.–(1) Save as otherwise
provided by any law for the time being in force, every
pleading shall be verified at the foot by the party or by
one of the parties pleading or by some other person
proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted
with the facts of the case.
(2) The person verifying shall specify, by reference to
the numbered paragraphs of the pleading, what he veri-
fies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon
information received and believed to be true.
(3) The verification shall be signed by the person mak –
ing it and shall state the date on which and the place at
which it was signed.
(4) The person verifying the pleading shall also furnish
an affidavit in support of his pleadings.”
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.24/42
SUNIL
KHATRI
Digitally signed by
SUNIL KHATRI
Date: 2026.02.07
17:18:22 +0530
11.2 In view of the above, every pleading shall be signed by the
party and his pleader and in his absence it may be signed by a
person duly authorised by him to do so. Similarly, every pleading
shall be verified by any party or one of the parties pleading or by
some other person acquainted with the facts of the case. Therefore,
there is no bar on verification of pleadings by any one party on
behalf of others. However, the pleadings must be signed by party
himself or in his absence any person duly authorised by him. But
it is not necessary that all the plaintiffs should sign and verify the
pleadings. It is sufficient if the plaint is signed by one of the
plaintiffs with the consent or knowledge of others. Nothing has
come on record to show that suit was instituted by plaintiff no. 2
without the consent or knowledge of other plaintiffs. Therefore,
even if no specific authorisation was given by the other plaintiffs
in favour of plaintiff no. 2 to file the present suit in Ex.PW1/D1,
then also it cannot be said that suit has not not been validly insti-
tuted. Accordingly, present issue is decided in favour of plaintiffs
and against the defendants.
Issue no. vi.
“Whether the plaintiff is in the possession of the suit property?
OPP”
12.1 The onus to prove the aforesaid fact is on the plaintiff. To
prove the same plaintiff has filed various documents like property
assessment form Ex.PW3/1, Electricity Application form Ex.
PW6/1, Copy of service connection record dated 23.12.1977 Ex.
PW6/2, Inspection report alongwith receipt of Rs. 125/- Ex.
PW6/3, Distribution receipt (02 pages) Ex. PW6/4, House Tax
receipt from MCD dated 13.01.1977 Ex PW6/5, Test report dated
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.25/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:18:29
+0530
15.11.1978 Ex. PW6/6 etc. which show that late Sh. Khilu Ram
was in the possession of the suit property. On the her hand De-
fendant have relied upon Electricity and Water Bills Ex. DW1/23
to DW1/25 to contend that they are in possession of the suit
property and paying the electricity and water bill for the same.
However, perusal of the aforesaid Electricity bills and Water bill
show that name of the customer/owner has been mentioned therein
as Sh. Khilu Ram and Sh. Ganga Saran respectively. Merely by
paying someone else’s bill a person cannot be presumed as owner
or in possession of the property. Nothing has come on record to
show that defendants have taken any steps to mutate their name in
the said electricity and water connections.
12.2 In view of the above, it is clear that the property was under
the possession of late Sh. Khilu Ram i.e. the ancestor of the
plaintiffs. The defendants have no disputed the ownership of late
Sh. Khilu Ram over the suit property. They have also admitted the
possession of plaintiff no. 3 in the suit property. It is their case that
married daughter of late Sh. Khilu Ram i.e. plaintiff no. 1 and 2,
and his grandson i.e. plaintiff no. 4 are out of possession of the suit
property.
12.3 In this regard it is relevant to mention the observations of
Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sant Ram NaginaRam v. Daya Ram Nagina Ram, AIR 1961 Pb. 528 as follows:-
(1) A co-owner has an interest in the whole property and
also in every parcel of it.
(2) The possession of the joint property by one co-owner
is, in the eye of law, possession of all even if all, but one,
are actually out of possessions.
(3) A mere occupation of a larger portion or even of an
entire joint property does not necessarily amount toCS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.26/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:18:34
+0530
ouster as the possession of one is deemed to be on behalf
of all.
(4) The above rule admits of an exception when there is
ouster of a co-owner by another. But in order to negative
the presumption of joint possession on behalf of all, on
the ground of ouster, the possession of a co-owner must
not only be exclusive, but also hostile to the knowledge
of the other, as when a co-owner openly asserts his
own title and denies that of the other.
(5) Passage of time does not extinguish the right of the
co-owner who has been out of possession of the joint
property except in the event of ouster or abandonment.
(6) Every co-owner has a right to use the joint property
in a husband like manner not inconsistent with similar
right of other co-owners.
(7) Where a co-owner is in possession of separate
parcels under an arrangement consented to by the other
co-owners, it is not open to any one to disturb the ar-
rangement without the consent of others except by filing
a suit for partition.
(8) The remedy of a co-owner not in possession or not in
possession of a share of the joint property, is by way of
a suit for partition or for actual possession, but not for
ejectment. Same is the case where a co-owner sets up an
exclusive title in himself.”
12.4 In the opinion of the court, in the absence of partition of
the suit property, it cannot be said that merely due to the marriage
of plaintiff no. 1 and 2 they were ousted from the suit property. On
the contrary they remained in constructive possession of the suit
property even after their marriage. As the defendants have admit-
ted the possession of plaintiff no. 3 in the suit property, then in the
eyes of law, other co-owners also have possession in the property
even if they are physically out of possession.
Accordingly, present issue is decided in favour of the
plaintiffs and against the defendants.
Issue no. vii.
“Whether suit of the plaintiff has been valued properly purpose of
court fees? OPP”.
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.27/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:18:42
+0530
13.1 The onus to prove the aforesaid issue in on the plaintiffs.
No evidence has been led by the plaintiffs on this issue. However,
it being an issue of law, has been decided on the basis of material
available on record. It is the contention of the defendants that
plaintiff have not correctly valued the suit properly and resultantly
proper court fees has not been paid by them. As per the defendant,
the suit has to be valued at the market value of the property. In her
cross-examination, plaintiff no.1/PW-1 has admitted that property
is worth crores of rupees. However, fixed court fees has been paid
by the plaintiff.
13.2 The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent in-
junction, mandatory injunction and for seeking declaration of
documents executed by Smt. Kamlesh in favour of defendants as
null and void. Admittedly, plaintiff no. 3 i.e. one of the co-owners
is in possession of the part of the suit property. The document
sought to declared null and void were not executed by the plain-
tiffs.. In the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir
Singh and Others (2010) 12 SCC 112 it has been held by the
Hon’ble Apex Court that when the non-executant who is in the
possession challenges the instrument/sale-deed then he need not
seek relief of cancellation of that instrument/sale-deed and only
declaration of it being adjudged null and void would be sufficient.
Further, only fixed court fees would by payable in such cases and
there is no need to pay ad-valorem court fees on the consideration
amount mentioned in the instrument/sale-deed or market value of
property. No possession or recovery of arrears of rent/damages
have been sought from the defendants. In these facts, in the con-
sidered opinion of the court, there was no need for the plaintiff to
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.28/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:18:48
+0530
value the suit at the market value of the suit property and pay ad-
valorem court fees. Accordingly, the aforesaid issue is decided in
favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
Issue no. viii.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent in junc-
tion as prayed? OPP;
Issue no. ix.
“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction
as prayed? OPP”;
and
Issue no. x.
“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration as
prayed? OPP”
14.1 The aforesaid issues are taken up together for the sake of
convenience and due to the fact that common evidence has been
led by the parties. In brief, the case of the plaintiffs is that plain-
tiffs are legal heirs of late Sh. Khilu Ram who was the owner of
suit property. The said property is ancestral in nature and no par-
tition of same had been effected till date. The defendants who are
the owner in possession of adjacent property and also the descen-
dants of brother of Late Sh. Khilu Ram, had illegally and unau-
thorisedly constructed a door on the second floor of the suit prop-
erty without any permission of the owners. Moreover, the defen-
dants have also been collecting rent from the tenants in the prop-
erty since April-May,2005. The complaints made by the plaintiffs
to the police authorities have not been acted upon due to the in-
fluence of defendant no. 3, who is serving in Delhi Police. The
documents executed by Smt. Kamlesh in favour of defendant no.2
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.29/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:18:55
+0530
are forged, fabricated and illegal as Smt. Kamlesh having mur-
dered his husband late Sh. Ganga Saran, she was debarred from
inheriting his property.
14.2 Per contra, defendants have set up the case that the suit
property had already been partitioned on 05.03.1995 vide Pan-
chayatnama Ex. PW1/D2, whereby Sh. Chaiti and Sh. Ganga
Saran i.e. the two sons of Late Sh. Khilu Ram had taken posses-
sion of half-half share in the suit property. The plaintiff no. 1 and
2 have no share in the suit property as they are married daughter
of Late Sh. Khilu Ram. The defendants were collecting rent from
the portion falling in the share of Late Sh. Ganga Saran on the
basis of Special Power of Attorney 09.09.1998 executed by Smt.
Kamlesh, his wife in favour of defendant no. 1 and for the said
purpose the door at the second floor of the suit property was con-
structed by the defendants. Further, the porting falling in the share
of Sh. Ganga Saran had already been sold by Smt. Kamlesh to the
defendant no. 2 through General Power of Attorney, Agreement
to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt all dated 24.02.2003 executed by her.
14.3 In view of the aforesaid facts, following questions have
arisen for consideration in the present case:
A. Whether married daughters of late Sh. Khilu Ram
have any right, title or interest in the suit property?
(Proved.)
B. Whether partition of the suit property was effected
by way of Ex. PW1/D2 i.e. panchayatnama dated
05.03.1995?
(Disproved).
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.30/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:19:03
+0530
C. Whether late Sh. Ganga Saran was murdered
by his wife Smt. Kamlesh?
(Not Proved.)
D. Whether Special Power of Attorney dated
09.09.1998 and General Power of Attorney, Agree
ment to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt all dated 24.02.2003
executed by Smt. Kamlesh in favour of defendant
no. 1 and defendant no. 2 respectively, null and void
ab-initio ?
(Proved.)
A. Whether married daughters of late Sh. Khilu Ram
have any right, title or interest in the suit property?
15. Defendants have raised question about the right of plaintiff
no. 1 & 2, who are married daughters of late Sh. Khilu Ram, over
the suit property. The onus to prove the aforesaid issue is on the
defendants because as per the rules of evidence burden lies on the
person who would fail if no evidence at all would be given by any
of the parties. Plaintiff no. 1 & 2 admittedly being daughters and
class 1 heirs of late Sh. Khilu Ram have right in the suit property.
Since, the defendants are denying their right, the onus lies on them
to prove the disentitlement of the plaintiff no. 1 and 2 in the suit
property.
15.1 In this regard, it is relevant to reproduce the relevant provi-
sions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (H.S.A in short), wherein by
way of amendment in the year 2005, the gender discrimination in
the H.S.A has been removed and daughters have been provided
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.31/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:19:10
+0530
equal rights and liabilities in ancestral property. Section 06 of the
H.S.A provides as follows:
6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property.―
(1)On and from the commencement of the Hindu Suc –
cession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), in a Joint
Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the
daughter of a coparcener shall,― (a) by birth become a
coparcener in her own right the same manner as the son;
(b) have the same rights in the coparcenery property as
she would have had if she had been a son; (c) be subject
to the same liabilities in respect of the said co-
parcenery property as that of a son, and any reference to
a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to in-
clude a reference to a daughter of a coparcener: Pro-
vided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall
affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation in-
cluding any partition or testamentary disposition of
property which had taken place before the 20th day of
December, 2004.
,……..
(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a
partition, which has been effected before the 20th day
of December, 2004 Explanation.―For the purposes of
this section “partition” means any partition made by
execution of a deed of partition duly registered under
the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition ef-
fected by a decree of a court.
15.2 Further, the confusion as to whether the rights under H.S.A
are available to only living daughters of living coparceners has
been put to rest by the Hon’ble Supreme in the case of Vineeta
Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. (2020) 10 S.C.R. 135, thereby
overruling the different interpretation given in Prakash v.
Phulavati (2016) 2 SCC 36 and Mangammal v. T.B. Raju (2018)
15 SCC 662 it was held that-
(i) The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of co-
parcener on the daughter born before or after amend-
ment in the same manner as son with same rights and
liabilities.
(i)The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier
with effect from 09.09.2005 with savings as provided
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.32/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:19:18
+0530
in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, parti-
tion or testamentary disposition which had taken place
before 20th day of December, 2004.
(i)Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not neces –
sary that father coparcener should be living as on
09.09.2005.
(i)The statutory fiction of partition created by proviso to
Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as origi-
nally enacted did not bring about the actual partition or
disruption of coparcenary. The fiction was only for the
purpose of ascertaining share of deceased coparcener
when he was survived by a female heir, of Class-I as
specified in the Schedule to the Act of 1956 or male
relative of such female. The provisions of the substituted
Section 6 are required to be given full effect. Notwith-
standing that a preliminary decree has been passed the
daughters are to be given share in coparcenary equal to
that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or
in an appeal.
(i) In view of the rigor of provisions of Explanation to Sec-
tion 6(5) of the Act of 1956, a plea of oral partition
cannot be accepted as the statutory recognised mode of
partition effected by a deed of partition duly registered
under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or
effected by a decree of a court. However, in excep-
tional cases where plea of oral partition is supported by
public documents and partition is finally evinced in the
same manner as if it had been affected by a decree of a
court, it may be accepted. A plea of partition based on
oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be re-
jected outrightly”
15.3 In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Apex Court rejected the
argument that a married daughter ceases to be a member of the
father’s family and becomes a member of her husband’s family
thereby having no right in joint Hindu family property. It was ob-
served that:
50. Concerning gender discrimination to a daughter
who always remains a loving daughter, we quoteS avita
Samvedi (Ms) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 1996 (2)
SCC 380, thus: “6. A common saying is worth pressing
into service…. “A son is a son until he gets a wife. A
daughter is a daughter throughout her life.” 7. …The el-
igibility of a married daughter must be placed on a par
with an unmarried daughter (for she must have been once
in that state), …..to claim the benefit….. …(Otherwise, it
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.33/42
SUNIL
KHATRI
Digitally signed by
SUNIL KHATRI
Date: 2026.02.07
17:19:31 +0530
would be) unfair, gender-biased and unreasonable, liable
to be struck down under Article 14 of the Constitution.
… It suffers from twin vices of gender discrimination
inter se among women on account of marriage.”
15.4 In view of the above law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, there is no force in argument of the defendants
that being married daughters of late Sh. Khilu Ram plaintiff no. 1
and plaintiff no. 2 have no interest in the suit property.
Issue No. B
“Whether partition of the suit property was effected by way of Ex.
PW1/D2 i.e. panchayatnama dated 05.03.1995?”
16 Defendants have placed heavy reliance on panchayatnama
i.e. Ex. PW-1/D2 allegedly arrived between the sons of late Sh.
Khilu Ram. Defendant no./DW-2 have stated in his cross-exami-
nation that suit property was partitioned on the basis of aforesaid
Ex. PW-1/D2 and the yellow portion in the site plan was given to
the share of late Sh. Chaiti. Moreover, red portion was given to
late Sh. Ganga Saran. Therefore, special power of attorney way
was given by way of Ex. DW-1/1 by Smt. Kamlesh to defendant
no. 1, to collect the rent of the property in respect of property
falling in her share after the death of her husband.
16.1 In the aforesaid panchayatnama i.e. PW1/D2 it was men-
tioned that Panchayat after due deliberation and with the approval
of everyone had decided that Sh. Ganga and Sh. Chaiti had half-
half share in the suit property. It was further mentioned that both
of them could not sell the house until their children attain major-
ity. The said panchayatnama had purportedly been signed by late
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.34/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:19:37
+0530
Sh. Ganga Saran and 22 other Panchayat members/witnesses.
Surprisingly, the same did not bear the signature of late Sh. Chaiti
Singh.
16.2 In the opinion of the court, the aforesaid Ex. PW1/D2 can-
not be termed as Partition Deed so as to defeat the rights of plain-
tiff no. 1 and 2 in the suit property due to reasons mentioned
hereinafter.
16.3 As a general rule, partition can be effected orally and there
is no mandatory requirement that it should be in writing. However,
in view of 2005 amendment to H.S.A and the judgment of Vineeta
Sharma (supra), where partition of ancestral property in joint
Hindu Family is effected prior to 20.12.2004 without leaving any
share to the daughter of the deceased, it should be either by way
of registered partition deed or by way of final decree of court.
Admittedly neither any registered partnership deed was effected
between the sons of late Sh. Khilu Ram nor any final decree was
passed by any court in this regard. Ex. PW1/D2 relied upon by
the defendants is more in the nature of family settlement arrived
by the member of the panchayat, at it merely declares the rights
of late Sh. Ganga Saran and late Sh. Chaiti Singh in the suit prop-
erty without effecting partition by metes and bounds. Nothing has
been stated therein as to how the suit property shall be divided
between two brother. Moreover, condition on sale of the property
was also put till the majority of their children. The said settlement
was also not signed by late Sh. Chaiti. It was observed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma (supra) as follows:
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.35/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:19:43
+0530
“The object of preventing, setting up of false or frivo-
lous defence to set at naught the benefit emanating from
amended provisions, has to be given full effect. Other-
wise, it would become very easy to deprive the daughter
of her rights as a coparcener. When such a defence is
taken, the Court has to be very extremely careful in ac-
cepting the same, and only if very cogent, impeccable,
and contemporaneous documentary evidence in shape of
public documents in support are available, such a plea
may be entertained, not otherwise. We reiterate that the
plea of an oral partition or memorandum of partition,
unregistered one can be manufactured at any point in
time, without any contemporaneous public document
needs rejection at all costs. We say so for exceptionally
good cases where partition is proved conclusively and
we caution the courts that the finding is not to be based
on the preponderance of probabilities in view of provi-
sions of gender justice and the rigor of very heavy bur-
den of proof which meet intendment of Explanation
to Section 6 (5). It has to be remembered that courts
cannot defeat the object of the beneficial provisions
made by the Amendment Act.”
16.4 Apart from the Ex PW1/D2 i.e. Panchayatnama, nothing has
been placed on record by the defendants to show the severance of
status or partition by metes and bounds of the suit property. No
cogent, impeccable and contemporaneous documentary evidence
in the shape of public documents as mentioned above have been
filed which proves the averments made by defendants regarding
partition of the suit property.
16.5 In view of above, defendants have failed to prove that suit
property has been partitioned and plaintiff no. 1 & 2 i.e. married
daughter of late Sh. Khilu Ram have no right in the same.
Issue No. C
“Whether late Sh. Ganga Saran was murdered by his wife Smt.
Kamlesh?
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.36/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:19:49
+0530
17.1 The onus to prove the aforesaid issue was on the plaintiffs.
It has been averred in the plaint and evidence affidavit of plaintiff
no.1/PW-1 that Smt. Kamlesh had murdered his husband and was
undergoing life imprisonment for the same. Interestingly, defen-
dant no. 2/DW-2 has also admitted in his cross-examination that
Smt. Kamlesh was convicted for murdering his husband late Sh.
Ganga Saran. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that in view of
the admission of the defendant no. 2 himself it has been proved
that Smt. Kamlesh being murderer of her husband was disqualified
from inserting his property in view of bar of Section 25 of H.S.A.
In this regard the Section 25 of H.S.A provides as follows:
25. Murderer disqualified-
“A person who commits murder or abets the
commission of murder shall be disqualified from in-
heriting the property of the person murdered, or any
other property in furtherance of the succession to
which he or she committed or abetted the commission
of the murder.”
17.2 In view of the aforesaid provisions, a murderer or abettor
is disqualified from inhering the property of person murdered by
him or her under Hindu Succession Laws. The rule is based on the
principles of equity that a murderer should not be unjustly enriched
and he should not be allowed to have fruits of the crime commit-
ted by him or her. Very cleverly word used in the said provision
is ‘murdered’ and no ‘killed’, because the death of person by an-
other person may by due to accident, negligence or in private de-
fence etc. However, for murder, a clear intention or knowledge
should be there that the act would lead to death of that person. In
the present case, plaintiffs have vaguely stated in the plaint and
evidence affidavit that late Sh. Ganga Saran was murdered by his
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.37/42
SUNIL
KHATRI
Digitally signed by
SUNIL KHATRI
Date: 2026.02.07
17:19:54 +0530
wife Smt. Kamlesh and she is undergoing life imprisonment for
that. Nothing has been stated as on which date, month and year the
alleged murder took place. Moreover, the relevant facts that how
he was murdered was not stated by plaintiffs. No document like
FIR, Chargesheet and Conviction order etc. has been placed on
record in support of their contention. Defendant no.2/DW2 has
admitted in his cross examination that ” It is correct that Smt.
Kamlesh w/o Late Sh. Ganga Saran. It is also correct that Smt.
Kamlesh was convicted for the offence of murder of her husband
Late Sh. Ganga Saran.” In this regard the Section Section 53 of
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (previously Section 58 of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872) provide as follows :
Section 53-
“No fact needs to be proved in any proceeding which
the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the
hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to ad-
mit by any writing under their hands, or which by any
rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to
have admitted by their pleadings:
Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the
facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such ad-
missions.”
17.3 Therefore, a fact admitted by any party in his pleadings or
which he agreed to admit in writing at the hearing or before the
hearing shall be deemed to have been admitted by him and there
is no need to prove the same. The said rule is based on the ground
of convenience, as the facts which are already admitted, if required
to by proved, would lead to wastage of time and resources. That
rule is not however mandatory and the court may in its discretion
require even the admitted facts to proved by way of other evi-
dence. In the present case, the fact regarding conviction of Smt.
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.38/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:19:59
+0530
Kamlesh was not admitted by the defendants in their WS. There-
fore, it was imperative that plaintiffs prove the the same during the
course of the trial. Plaintiffs can easily file the certified copy of the
conviction order or even the FIR to prove the fact of murder of late
Sh. Ganga Saran. The same was not done. Hence, despite oppor-
tunity, plaintiffs have failed to prove the that late Sh. Ganga Saran
was murdered by Smt. Kamlesh. Merely, on the basis of vague
statement in the cross-examination of DW-2 it cannot be said that
fact regarding murder of late Sh. Ganga Saran has been proved by
the plaintiffs. Accordingly, plantiffs have failed to prove that Late
Sh. Ganga Saran was murdered by his wife Smt. Kamlesh.
Issue No. D
“Whether Special Power of Attorney dated 09.09.1998 and Gen-
eral Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt all
dated 24.02.2003 executed by Smt. Kamlesh in favour of defen-
dant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 respectively, null and void ab-ini-
tio?
18.1 The onus to prove the aforesaid issue is on the plaintiffs.
Defendants have claimed that they were collecting rent from the
suit property on the basis Special Power of Attorney dated
09.09.1998 Ex. DW1/1, executed by Smt. Kamlesh in respect of
her portion in favour of defendant no. 1. Defendant have also re-
lied upon Ex. DW1/2 and DW1/3 i.e. letters written by Smt.
Kamlesh from the jail and Ex. DW1/4 to Ex.DW1/22 i.e. Money
orders sent by the defendant no.1 to her. It is true that said docu-
ment show that acting on the SPA, rent was collected by the de-
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.39/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:20:06
+0530
fendants and was sent to Smt. Kamlesh for the purpose of crimi-
nal case pending against her. However, once the court comes to
the conclusion that no partition of the suit property had taken place
and plaintiff no. 1 and 2 are also the co-owner of the suit property,
then Smt. Kamlesh had no authority to execute the said SPA for
property exceeding her share without the permission of other co-
owners of suit property. Even if for the sake of arguments it is as-
sumed that acting upon the Panchayatnama PW-1/D2 Smt. Kam-
lesh executed the said SPA, then also without the permission of
the other legal heirs of late Sh. Ganga Saran she was not autho-
rised to execute to the said SPA. Similarly, General Power of At-
torney Ex. DW2/1, Agreement to Sell Ex. DW2/2, Affidavit
Ex.DW2/4, Receipt Ex.DW2/3 all dated 24.02.2003 and Receipt
dated 30.09.2003 Ex.DW2/5 executed by Smt. Kamlesh in favour
of defendant no. 2 are not valid, as she has sold the portion of suit
property which was more than her entitlement as a co-owner as
discussed above. Accordingly, the said documents are null and
void ab-initio in the eyes of law. Defendants have also claimed
that in lieu of financial help provided to plaintiff no. 3 for the
marriage of her daughter they have been realising rent from the
tenants. However, defendants have miserablly failed to prove the
said averment on record. No transfer of money was proved on
record by the defendants. Nor it has been stated when the marriage
took place and how much amount was lent for the same. Despite
the specific suggestion regarding alleged loan given to DW-2/de-
fendant no. 2, neither any documentary evidence has been filed
nor any witness to the alleged financial transaction has been ex-
amined on behalf of the defendants. Hence, the said claim merelyCS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.40/42
SUNIL
KHATRI
Digitally signed by
SUNIL KHATRI
Date: 2026.02.07
17:20:13 +0530
remained a bald allegation without any proof to substantiate the
same.
18.2 Defendants have also claimed easementary rights over the
suit property. However, plaintiff had not sought any relief of
closing of windows of the defendants or any liberty to raise con-
struction in the suit property which may hinder any such alleged
right to air and water of the defendant. Neither any counter claim
has been filed on behalf of the defendant nor any fact in issue
framed for determination on the said aspect. Hence, in the opinion
of the court the question regarding easementary rights of the de-
fendant is irrelevant for the purpose of the adjudication of present
suit.
Relief
19. In view of the findings arrived for issue no. 8,9 and 10, the
suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed. Costs of the suit are also
awarded in favour of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, plaintiffs are held
entitled to the following reliefs:
a. Decree of permanent injunction, thereby defendants
are restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the
plaintiffs and they are also restrained from collecting the rent from
any of the tenants of the suit property;
b. Defendants are directed to remove the illegal/unau-
thorised entry/door in the wall of the second floor roof (shown in
red colour in the site plan) of the suit property within 60 days from
the date of this judgment so that plaintiffs can construct the wall at
its place. In case of their failure to do so, the plaintiffs shall be at
liberty to remove the said door/entry;
CS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.41/42
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:20:20
+0530
c. Special Power of Attorney 09.09.1998 and General
Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit and Receipt all
dated 24.02.2003, executed by Smt. Kamlesh in favour of defen-
dant no.1 and defendant no.2 respectively are hereby declared as
null and void ab-initio.
20. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
21. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in the open court SUNIL
KHATRI
on 07.02.2026. Digitally signed by
SUNIL KHATRI
Date: 2026.02.07
17:20:27 +0530
(SUNIL KHATRI)
Civil Judge-06/Central
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
Present judgment consists of 42 pages and each page is signed by
me. Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
2026.02.07
17:20:38
+0530(SUNIL KHATRI)
Civil Judge-06/Central
Tis Hazari Courts/DelhiCS SCJ 595959/16 Mayawati & Ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors. Pg. no.42/42
